GNOME announced an interim director of Richard Littauer, who joined last week.
Holly’s resignation appears to be personal, as she intends to pursue a PhD in Psychology.
Do you have any sources? Not trying to imply anything, I just don’t know anything about it, and I’d be interested to do a little reading.
Done, I edited my previous comment.
Holly holds a Master of Arts in Education from Stanford University and a Bachelor of Arts in English from Harvard University. Her academic background, combined with her extensive professional journey, equips her with a unique perspective that will undoubtedly contribute to the growth and success of the GNOME Foundation.
From the Gnome Foundation page about her. I am genuinely struggling to:
- Understand how a self-described shaman artist (who also sells “energy cleansing” services) is qualified to be director of anything but her own business ventures.
- Understand how a person with a background in education and English is qualified to direct a foundation.
Like FFS, do they just let anybody in?
Tbf though the results speak for themselves though, GNOME has definitely been thriving under her though much of that is also do to the effort of others. She did put in a lot of work and no one inside GNOME complained so I assume it was a good deal. Also the page you linked shows she’s been working in executive positions in non profits for a while so definitely qualified.
She lasted slightly longer than a head of lettuce. I don’t think she’ll be the reason Gnome Foundation lives or dies.
She lasted slightly longer than a head of lettuce
That must be one plucky lettuce head considering that holly has been the director for nearly a year.
Gnome foundation will continue to thrive with and without her but she has made some decent contributions while she was there
Unlike some other leaders that have been compared to lettuce…
Also the page you linked shows she’s been working in executive positions in non profits for a while so definitely qualified.
That’s certainly something to bear in mind, but as someone who worked in academia, resume ≠ qualified. Especially at the Director+ levels, unqualified people get to become provosts and presidents all the time.
She may be qualified on paper, but given the fact that she voluntarily left after only 10mo, it speaks to the fact that she’s likely a flake and very self-interested. Gnome may have thrived, but it remains to be seen if that was because of or in spite of her; perhaps she was so hands-off that everybody else just ran things the way they needed to be run.
Yeah. I do find her “shamanism” to be something to eyeroll at, but her actual work experience shows her running multiple non-profits, and by all accounts she did a decent job at Gnome.
Clearly her shamanism BS didn’t actually affect her ability to work at Gnome or the other places she’s worked.
You can be an absolute moron/a crazy person in some areas, whilst simultaneously being qualified to do some difficult jobs.
Steve Jobs thought a fruit diet would cure pancreatic cancer, but he still had the chops to run Apple. A certain GNU figure that the Linux community loves has some, uh, unusual views on whether children can consent to sex or not, but he was still a great programmer and advocate for FOSS. I have a friend who thought Manchester, not London, was the capital of England, yet he works as an aeronautical engineer (and not for Boeing lol) in a senior design position.
removed by mod
A lot of OSS projects and small non-profits? Yes. The cost to entry is “be willing to volunteer” and very few people pay that cost so basically anybody can get in. These aren’t exactly competitive positions. And if they improve the software honestly idk if they’re a shaman healer or whatever. I care about the software. As long as their energy healing garbage isn’t somehow getting into the software who cares?
As I pointed out elsewhere, if she was a warm body to fill a position and was completely hands-off, and that allowed everybody else to do what was needed, then it was overall a positive. However, a good leader can definitely help propel the group more than one who is just there.
Both examples are positive, but they aren’t equally positive outcomes.
WTF does someone’s spiritual beliefs and practices have to do with how well they are able to run an organisation? That’s an ad hominem argument. My country has a Christian prime minister at the moment but oh noes, I’m a non-religious hippy ‘witch’ so I guess our prime minister should step down because he believes in a pseudoscientific giant bearded man that lives in the sky and goes to an expensive building every week to speak magic words in unison with other cult members to call a special spirit to bless everyone that believe the exact same doctrines…
Believing in things that don’t exist sounds tied pretty closely with being a terrible businessman.
And yes, religious leaders should not be leaders IMO.
You should not accuse me of fallacies when I have not even argued that… My contempt is due to her actions. Using your example, if I have a problem that requires a healthcare professional, I don’t think your prime minister would try to sell me things that have been proven useless but pretending otherwise, such as energy healing or homeopathy. Far from just beliefs, there is a big difference when one is actively harming others, especially for profit and there is information available about it.
